From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Gortmaker Subject: Re: intel_turbo_max_3 non-modularity Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:02:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20170424140218.GR16239@windriver.com> References: <20170424113103.0de3ea31@endymion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: Received: from mail5.windriver.com ([192.103.53.11]:35850 "EHLO mail5.wrs.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1171947AbdDXODH (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:03:07 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170424113103.0de3ea31@endymion> Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jean Delvare Cc: Darren Hart , Andy Shevchenko , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org [intel_turbo_max_3 non-modularity] On 24/04/2017 (Mon 11:31) Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi all, > > I see that the intel_turbo_max_3 driver was originally supposed to be > modular, and then support for that possibility was removed. Is there > any fundamental reason why this driver can't be built as a module? Re-reading the thread, it was stated that the driver needed exports of some scheduler functions that weren't currently exported. To me, that means one of two things -- the driver is poking at scheduler internals that it shouldn't be and needs to be modified accordingly, or that someone needs to convince the sched folks that there is valid use cases for exports of these functions, and _then_ enable modularity. I didn't try to build it as a module, so I can't say what the sched dependencies were, or if they looked valid. But I have seen the sched folks being not impressed at how certain arch specific PM/freq stuff has been implemented in the past, which is why I mention it as a possibility. P.